Friday, 29-Mar-2024, 0:39 AM
Welcome Guest | RSS
Star Wars : Conflicts
Main
Registration
Login
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
  • Page 1 of 1
  • 1
Forum » Out of Character » OOC Area » Changes to Battle Rules (A discussion of changes to how we do the battles)
Changes to Battle Rules
KaelDate: Saturday, 25-Dec-2010, 11:00 PM | Message # 1
Big Three Member
Group: Administrators
Messages: 153
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
If I may, I would like to start a discussion of how I would like to see the battles on Conflicts done. Of course this is just a discussion and in now is changing the existing rules... unless we vote on it.

First, I would like to have a rule that the attacker has to agree to be attacked. This would stop a faction with just a few fleet commanders from being overwhelmed. Of course they would have to state a reason for the decline and if need be the management could rule on it. This would allow management to direct the scope of the war.

Second, Shipyards can't be stolen. They can be damaged and parts of them could be destroyed, but they cannot be dragged off into hyperspace.

So let's discuss them.

 
RippyDate: Sunday, 26-Dec-2010, 12:56 PM | Message # 2
Original Site Side Manager
Group: Users
Messages: 180
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
I think this discussion is a great idea.

Maybe it's just me, but when I'm in a battle it's almost like a chore for me to respond, especially when I'm in locked in two. Calculating as fairly as possible damages to my shields and how many weapons I'm firing, at who, where, etc. is tough to type out, and while the finished product is an epic battle I'm starting to wonder whether our hundreds of turbolaser batteries pitted against hundreds of turbolaser batteries are as fun as they used to be.

My suggestion could be the total implementation of a honor system for combat. While more extensive RP content would be needed in a post, I think it might be a better option than having to go through and decide where I'm shooting my heavy turbos, and then moving my one destroyer to cover my damaged cruiser, and then focusing ions, etc.


Sadly enough, they just keep dying...
--
My characters!
 
Merkillum_VeersDate: Monday, 27-Dec-2010, 6:10 AM | Message # 3
Original Site member
Group: Users
Messages: 221
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Well, there was a game I played (its still there, but its been dead a while. A few people check in now and again.) that was similar to this. It was a medieval setting type.... and battles were done in a way like this.

Attacker: Attacking from city a to city b.
Units attacking with: 3 X units, 2 Y units, 1 Z unit.
Cost: Blah (money was given every week based on the amount of towns you controlled, and you bought armies and moved them using this weekly allowance.)

Defender had 1 week to respond. If Defending, post was made.

Defending City B. (if applicable) Renforcments from city C.
Units: 3x, 2y from city b, 1 z from city c.
Cost: Unit costs for movements ect.

Defender then put a small description of what the terrain was like, sometimes troop locations and formation. But mostly, just the terrain the defense was setting up at.

Now, the attacker makes a post, usually consisting of leaders talking tactics, some RP, troop movements and stratagy.

Defense makes a similar post

Attacker makes a post around the defenders post

Defender makes a post around attackers post....

Now, for normal battles, that was it. The battle was now ready to be judged, and was judged by three people. Usually mods, but not always.

The judgement was based on:
Post Content (How well you posted in general.)
Fairness (How well your playing casualtys, ect.)
Troop Number comparison (and troop quality)

Now, little things come into play, like grammar and tactics and such. Each judge breaks down their ruling, and sends it off to the third judge who does the same. At this point, that judge makes the final call, based on both reviews and his own, how the battle plays out. Now, for a few big battles, the judges made their review on the battle public, so that the players saw how they were judged. But most of the time, at the end of the 'gm conclusion post' (What happens during the battle, who is victory, and what units were lost) there is a small segment with brief parts to it.

 
Merkillum_VeersDate: Monday, 27-Dec-2010, 6:12 AM | Message # 4
Original Site member
Group: Users
Messages: 221
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
http://s1.zetaboards.com/GameofThrones/topic/722829/1/#new

Thats the site, actually, incase one wants to look over the rules, and read some old battle posts in the archives.

I know that this site would not be able to use those rules as standing, due to the more prominent list of units, larger scope, and such. But, I figure I would go ahead and post it up so a diffrent type of rule set could be looked at. Perhaps thats how the old site did it, cause I never got a chance to be in battle on the old site.

The honor system works as well, though sometimes mistakes are made, and it is necessary for GM intervention, similar to the training sim post.

 
Viper7784Date: Monday, 27-Dec-2010, 2:30 PM | Message # 5
Big Three Member
Group: Users
Messages: 164
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Shipyards i agree and is no big deal.

As for the first topic. That is why there is a rule in place that no faction can have more than so many planets attacked at one time. Now if there are outside the site issues that the faction leader or particular commanders need extra time then they should have that extra time (perfect example is me who has limited access due to the fact that the computer i use for the internet is not mine its my brothers and i have only so much time on it per day). Second i would completly agree with your suggestion if we had quite a few factions. We dont. We have 2 primary and pretty much 2 secondary factions, which i believe for the primary (and the only ones with fleets) are even with it comes to fleet commanders. Overall i think it needs to be worked out before between the two. Most of us have charachters in both and know whats happening. If you know that an attack is coming make arrangments before hand.


By the power invested in my torpedos, I now pronounce you DEAD.
 
KaelDate: Monday, 27-Dec-2010, 2:35 PM | Message # 6
Big Three Member
Group: Administrators
Messages: 153
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Good Point. I was thinking of the future and when we do have more officers/factions. I remember one time that one of the fleet would just attack all the time and it ruined a site campaign we were trying to do.

If we can agree that the faction leaders need to approve it for their subordinates, that I'd be okay with that.

 
Viper7784Date: Monday, 27-Dec-2010, 2:45 PM | Message # 7
Big Three Member
Group: Users
Messages: 164
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
If it is storyline based stuff then the faction leaders and assistant faction leaders need to be talking to ensure that the storyline stays on track. And if it does get to that point then us as managers will need to step in to get things back into balance.

By the power invested in my torpedos, I now pronounce you DEAD.
 
Merkillum_VeersDate: Tuesday, 28-Dec-2010, 2:25 AM | Message # 8
Original Site member
Group: Users
Messages: 221
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Well, the get it into balance could be plot ideas like the one I proposed, or something diffrent. I was just putting forth a diffrent rule set (And yes, the way that rule system worked was with about.... 9 players all starting with one city... in this case, if we DID go to using rules like that, it would be in some form of future where the empire ANd republic fell, and the planets all went independent, or small alliances... and the players were trying once again to make their own way. But, starting with one planet, a limited number of resources and such.. would drag this out alot, and take away from the RP I think)

But anyhow, ya. Balance can always be maintained.

 
Divebomber311Date: Tuesday, 28-Dec-2010, 2:40 AM | Message # 9
Big Three Member
Group: Users
Messages: 258
Reputation: 2
Status: Offline
The site is on honor now. The specifiying where you are targeting is purely optional, but does relate to the damage your opponent takes. We are trying to make this site more creative then the original. We dont have members here who if you dont use the word "Each" will try to Eff you out of damage.

Agreeing to be attacked I think, no offence, is ignorant. I can say that I never agree to be attacked and therefore the empire can not be attacked. Without that the site can not live up to its name...Conflicts. Rob pointed out we have a limit on the number of planets that can be attacked at one time, and honestly I dont see any major offensives from either side until we get more people online. I also dont have the time to rule on if an attack should happen or not based on the reasons for a decline. Management has always had the ability to direct the scope of wars. Based on how we use our own characters as well as the Admin powers we have.

Shipyard stuff I am fine with as well.


I am Divebomber311
One of the Original Big Three Managers
Head of the Once Feared Shadow Dragon Syndicate
Conflict will rage again
You Will fear my fleets again!
 
RippyDate: Tuesday, 28-Dec-2010, 8:31 AM | Message # 10
Original Site Side Manager
Group: Users
Messages: 180
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
I would mostly agree with Steve on the fact that asking an enemy Faction Leader if they can be attacked is not what we need. I do like having fleet and ground commanders ask before attacking another Faction, though.

Members and officers inside each faction should all be connected, but battle's have a 24 hour notice and then it's on.


Sadly enough, they just keep dying...
--
My characters!
 
Forum » Out of Character » OOC Area » Changes to Battle Rules (A discussion of changes to how we do the battles)
  • Page 1 of 1
  • 1
Search:


Copyright MyCorp © 2024